Ditto have any meds that require a scrip (and you don't have one for those meds). Even if pot's legal in your state, you are still in violation of the federal gun law about dope possession (while also in possession of a gun OR ammo). Bet you didnt know that, and I bet most of you have been guilty of this felony at some point in your life.
What? No way. Is this really true? I guess I need to read up on the laws. In Co & WA pot is legal but you can't own both? So bizarre. I never thought of pot and guns. There are still many things that need to be sorted out in the states that have legalized.
Yes Motomom, Even in States that allow Legal Pot Sales, there is still a Federal Statute, that makes Possession of Pot, a Felony, and possession of a FireArm, while also in Possession of Pot, is another Felony, under a different Federal Statute. The FEDs can chose to enforce their Statute, if the want, at any time, but in States where possession is Legal, State and local Law Enforcement, typically will be prohibited from enforcing those Federal Statutes, due to a State Statute, that says it is a Federal Issue, and we will NOT enforce it here. It is also true, that in some States, (Alaska) they have a "Felon in Possession of a FireArm" Exemption for Convicted Felons, if they meet the States requirements for such an Exemption. So a State Trooper or local cop wouldn't arrest a CF just for Possession, if he otherwise wasn't causing any legal Troubles. HOWEVER, a US Marshal, or FBI Agent, certainly would make such an Arrest, if they ran across such a case. This is done up here so even a CF can go hunting, and feed his family, if he meets the State requirements. There are a few other instances, where Federal and State Statutes, conflict, as well.... IT PAYS TO KNOW, just what the Law is, where you live..... Part of Prep'en in my Book...
Thanks @BTPost but that just leads me to more confusion. Yes I know that state and federal are not on the same page so which do you follow? Example the AZ immigration law. From what I read the AZ law was basically much of the fed law that was not being enforced yet the feds were/are suing AZ for enforcing the immigration laws. I know there are certain things that take precedence over others. Local, state, federal. So fed is supreme, then state then local? Or local, state then fed? To be a law abiding citizen which rule is the one to follow? Some would say that the constitution is the bottom line but some laws are chipping away at it.
The Feds would like to think that their Statutes are supreme, HOWEVER, there are NOT enough Feds to enforce ALL the Statutes that they have on the books, so they depend on State and local LE to do their Leg Work for them, and for the most part, that works. When the State and local LE are told by their Politicos to NOT enforce a Federal Statute, then it is up to the Feds to do it, themselves, or it just doesn't get done. That is where these things get sticky, as in Gun Regulations, and the Pot thing. This is where States have the option to decide that they will, or will not enforce any particular Federal Statute, under State Law.
When you say Politicos could/would that be the existing Governor, Senators, Congress people? Our governor really does not support the new law, he loves the money but was not happy that the people voted for it. I know the banks are following fed laws because the shops are having to buy money orders to pay their taxes. We have local fed offices and I do wonder if they would do as Washington wants. *please note I am not a pot head but I do question who trumps who.
Politicos as in the elected Folks, that HIRE, and employe, the local and State Law Enforcement Agencies.....
Feds are not going to do anything about the decriminalized pot states. There is also no State law that prohibits me from cleaning a rifle while enjoying a glass of wine. I'm not concerned although am not in possession of pot. UPDATE: Feds won't crack down on marijuana in Colorado, Washington | IndyBlog | Colorado Springs Independent